beta
Text
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each movable property listed in the separate sheet.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased corporeal movables, including those listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 2, 2011 and 943, in the auction procedure for movable properties conducted by the creditor Ors Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), from the Jeju District Court on November 20, 201, in KRW 16,120,000, in total, the corporeal movables, including those listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Poke”) in the movable auction procedure conducted by the creditor Ors Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).
At the time of the above auction, the appraised value of the Car in this case was KRW 10,000,000, and the appraised value of the Car in this case was KRW 15,000,000.
B. Since the purchase of the instant movable property, the Plaintiff had C’s employees keep the instant movable property.
However, C’s staff D or E transferred the instant movable property to the Defendant on March 2, 2013 through April 2013.
C. After that, the Plaintiff completed the transfer registration of ownership with respect to the instant meteorite in Jeju City Mayor.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 3 and 4, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. (1) In light of the above facts and the overall purport of the arguments on the claim for the delivery of movables, the Plaintiff purchased the movables of this case and acquired the ownership by taking over them through the method of possession amendment. Since the Defendant thereafter occupied the movables of this case from E or D by taking over them, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the movables of this case to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
(2) As to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant is not entitled to seek the delivery of the plaintiff, since it is registered as the ownership of F, not C, the debtor under the above auction procedure.
However, in light of the purport of the entire argument in the above evidence, the ownership of the instant Potter is registered.